The purpose of this current pictorial review is to define the solitary round pulmonary lesion (SRPL), to familiarize with its prevalence in the pediatric population, and, moreover, to educate radiologists on its vast differential diagnosis and imaging manifestations. Furthermore, by highlighting valuable clues, it intends to assist radiologists efficiently partake in its diagnosis, work-up, and follow-up in order to narrow down the differential diagnosis by working alongside the clinician and combining clinical information, lab results, and radiological findings.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a flow-limiting condition caused by narrowing of the peripheral arteries typically due to atherosclerosis. It affects almost 200 million people globally with patients either being asymptomatic or presenting with claudication or critical or acute limb ischemia. PAD-affected patients display increased mortality rates, rendering their management critical. Endovascular interventions have proven crucial in PAD treatment and decreasing mortality and have significantly increased over the past years. However, for the functional assessment of the outcomes of revascularization procedures for the treatment of PAD, the same tests that have been used over the past decades are still being employed. Those only allow an indirect evaluation, while an objective quantification of limb perfusion is not feasible. Standard intraarterial angiography only demonstrates post-intervention vessel patency, hence is unable to accurately estimate actual limb perfusion and is incapable of quantifying treatment outcome. Therefore, there is a significant necessity for real-time objectively measurable procedural outcomes of limb perfusion that will allow vascular experts to intraoperatively quantify and assess outcomes, thus optimizing treatment, obviating misinterpretation, and providing significantly improved clinical results. The purpose of this review is to familiarize readers with the currently available perfusion-assessment methods and to evaluate possible prospects.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread worldwide with over 260 million people infected and more than 5 million deaths, numbers that are escalating on a daily basis. Frontline health workers and scientists diligently fight to alleviate life-threatening symptoms and control the spread of the disease. There is an urgent need for better triage of patients, especially in third world countries, in order to decrease the pressure induced on healthcare facilities. In the struggle to treat life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia, scientists have debated the clinical use of ionizing radiation (IR). The historical literature dating back to the 1940s contains many reports of successful treatment of pneumonia with IR. In this work, we critically review the literature for the use of IR for both diagnostic and treatment purposes. We identify details including the computed tomography (CT) scanning considerations, the radiobiological basis of IR anti-inflammatory effects, the supportive evidence for low dose radiation therapy (LDRT), and the risks of radiation-induced cancer and cardiac disease associated with LDRT. In this paper, we address concerns regarding the effective management of COVID-19 patients and potential avenues that could provide empirical evidence for the fight against the disease.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a menacing pandemic, especially in vulnerable patients. Morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients are considered worse than those in the general population, but vary across continents and countries in Europe. AIM To describe the clinical course and outcomes of hospitalized MHD patients with COVID-19 in a retrospective observational single center study in Greece. METHODS We correlated clinical, laboratory, and radiological data with the clinical outcomes of MHD patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the pandemic. The diagnosis was confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Outcome was determined as survivors vs non-survivors and “progressors” (those requiring oxygen supplementation because of COVID-19 pneumonia worsening) vs “non-progressors”. RESULTS We studied 32 patients (17 males), with a median age of 75.5 (IQR: 58.5-82) years old. Of those, 12 were diagnosed upon screening and 20 with related symptoms. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) score, the severity on admission was mild disease in 16, moderate in 13, and severe in 3 cases. Chest computed tomography (CT) showed 1-10% infiltrates in 24 patients. Thirteen “progressors” were recorded among included patients. The case fatality rate was 5/32 (15.6%). Three deaths occurred among “progressors” and two in “non-progressors”, irrespective of co-morbidities and gender. Predictors of mortality on admission included frailty index, chest CT findings, WHO severity score, and thereafter the increasing values of serum LDH and D-dimers and decreasing serum albumin. Predictors of becoming a “progressor” included increasing number of neutrophils and neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio. CONCLUSION Patients on MHD seem to be at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality, distinct from the general population. Certain laboratory parameters on admission and during follow-up may be helpful in risk stratification and management of patients.

No abstract

Background Admission chest CT is often included in COVID-19 patient management. Purpose To evaluate the inter-and intraobserver variability of the Covid Visual Assessment Scale ("Co.V.A.Sc.") used for stratifying chest CT disease extent and to estimate its prospect to predict clinical outcomes. Materials and methodsThis single-center, retrospective observational cohort study included all RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 adult patients undergoing admission chest CT, between 01/03/2021 and 17/03/2021. CTs were independently evaluated by two radiologists according to the "Co.V.A.Sc." (0: 0%, 1: 1-10%, 2: 11-25%, 3: 26-50%, 4: 51-75%, 5: > 75%). Patient demographics, laboratory, clinical, and hospitalization data were retrieved and analyzed in relation to the "Co.V.A.Sc." evaluations. Results Overall, 273 patients (mean age 60.7 ± 14.8 years; 50.9% male) were evaluated. Excellent inter-and intraobserver variability was noted between the two independent radiologists' "Co.V.A.Sc." evaluations. "Co.V.A.Sc." classification (Exp(B) 0.391, 95%CI 0.212-0.719; p = 0.025) and patient age (Exp(B) 0.947, 95%CI 0.902-0.993; p = 0.25) were the only variables correlated with ICU admission, while age (Exp(B) 1.111, p = 0.0001), "Co.V.A.Sc." (Exp(B) 2.408; p = 0.002), and male gender (Exp(B) 3.213; p = 0.028) were correlated with in-hospital mortality. Specifically, for each "Co.V.A.Sc." unit increase, the probability of ICU admission increased by 1.47 times, and the probability of death increased by 11.1 times. According to ROC analysis, "Co.V.A.Sc." could predict ICU admission and in-hospital death with an optimal cutoff value of unit 3 (sensitivity 56.0%, specificity 84.3%) and unit 4 (sensitivity 41.9%, specificity 93.6%), respectively. Conclusion "Co.V.A.Sc." upon hospital admittance seems to predict ICU admission and in-hospital death and could aid in optimizing risk-stratification and patient management.

No abstract